Size matters? My Android friends have huge phones (and cases) - Clearly they don't mind a phone being big and if the phone had cheap replaceable parts, that giant "life proof" case wouldn't be needed.
Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. In fact I've heard from several who think a heavier phone means it's "better made".
Battery life - Again my Android friends (and a few 5c friends) suffer from poor battery life - How would a phone where you could easily swap for a new/better battery be inferior?
Gruber should remind himself of the first generation of pretty much any tech product. Bulky, ugly, and clumsy could describe a lot of projects that push technology to it's limits.
It does matter when comparing with alternatives. Modular phone with comparable specs to other phones (screen size, cpu, camera, etc) would probably be bigger, thicker, heavier and uglier. In other words, even when a customer is buying a big 5"+ phone, then I think he/she will probably not choose the modular one.
I think the key is the purchasing model. A "free phone" with contract every 2 years creates a situation where the consumer doesn't value repairing/upgrading their phone.
If you had to pay say $600-$800 for a phone upfront, one is upgradable/repairable and the other is not (but faster/sexier) I think some (maybe many) would choose the former.
The point is: A barebone model for 50 bucks that you could transform in a high-end device expending more money on it when you can afford it.
Also... need more battery life? Why not replace that extra RAM memory module for battery one? Or even... why not to replace the 4 Gb RAM module for one with 1Gb + more battery?
I get what you're saying and yet the more I read about this the more I find myself shaking my head thinking how stupid this really is. It's clearly not marketed at me. I will continue to buy standard STRESS-FREE devices.
Not every device is made to satisfy the entire market.
And they have already acknowledged they plan on having "effort free" choices available for consumers. Probably have a "about the same as a Samsung" option, a cheap option that has the important bells and maybe a minimal option you can build off of.
>> "I know people that just toss an $800 laptop like it's nothing when something goes wrong. We truly live in a disposable society."
Nope. You just happen to know people who can afford to toss an $800 laptop. For most of the 'lower middle class' people I know purchasing a laptop is a big deal and only happens once every 3/4/5 years. Even then they don't spend more than £400. Even when their laptop is practically unusable through age, damaged parts, viruses etc. they continue to use it because £400/$800/a new laptop is a lot of money.
But the only difference is the amount of money, not the attitude. No one thinks "I can afford a new laptop, but I'll rehabilitate this old one anyway."
I must not be anyone then. I have a (nearly) six-year old Thinkpad that I've upgraded a few times. I could have afforded a new replacement at any time, but I'd rather keep using the machine I already have.
i very much agree, products don't tend to last as long as they do anymore, and servicing them tends to cost close to the cost of new ones..
2-3 years ago I got new sony led tv and my wife was under the impression it would be our TV for the next 10-15 years... if major components don't go out in the next 1-3 years i will be happily suprised
I can give you bigger and thicker since I would expect those too. Neither is really a problem though. One of the benefits of the otterbox case for my Galaxy G3 is that it made the phone thicker, and it's already on the big side.
Heavier though will probably depend on the modules you choose, and ugly, well I thought what they were showing looked kind of good.
Personally, a lack of a SD card is one of the reasons I didn't get the Nexus or an iPhone. There are people that want these types of features and they win when comparing with alternatives.
The interesting thing about the mobile phone market is how big it is and what that means for niches.
There are about 900m Android phones out there. That means if you assume only 10% of the market might be interested in a particular variant of phone, your total addressable market is still 90 million (and growing).
My instinct is that this level of customisation is probably a relatively niche thing but - as outlined above - that doesn't mean that there isn't room for it to be commercially successful.
Yes, there are people whose needs are different. And I am much in favor of modular design (at least replaceable battery, SD card and USB OTG, but project Ara goes much further), but that does not seem to be the case with mainstream consumer.
Modularity has its advantages too. You could always run a bare bones phone with only the hardware you actually use attached to it while having a very good battery.
> Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere.
Your anecdotal evidence is about as valid as mine, and I can guarantee you that weight matters. Tactile feel matters. Looks, of course matter.
In all these cases, a modular device fares poorly compared to an integrated one. This is a handheld device - can you not imagine the amount of dirt and grime that would cake up between the module gaps if you don't have a case on the device? And if you do have a case, now you have to uncase to switch around the modules.
The era of modularity is past, or not yet ready to come back.
I don't see weight, tactile feel or looks on the list.
For those with cases, I doubt most even know what their phone really "feels" like, let alone actually weighs or even looks like.
As far as having to remove the case to swap a hardware component .. I don't think that's a major hurdle, we're not talking about a daily, weekly or even monthly task that would make that a pain.
If I could get an Android phone that's twice as thick as my current one, with the volume made up of a huge battery, regardless of how heavy it is, I'd buy it tomorrow. This obsession with thinness and lightness is something I frankly don't care about in the least.
I have a phone with a slightly larger screen than a Galaxy S5, that is also slightly smaller (LG G2). The efficient use of space mitigates the (few) disadvantages of a larger screen.
A phone that is bulky and has a large screen would be impractical. That's why size matters.
I don't really know who they are targetting with this device or their anticipated volume, so it is hard to say whether this will be "successful" or not. It seems certain to me that this is not a mass-market offering, though.
I'm not sure that "size matters" here means "small is better than large". But with a modular design where you can swap parts in and out, how could you ever change the size of your screen if you want a larger phone?
Not sure about increasing the size but being able to replace/fix a broken screen would be huge. I'm no hardware engineer but I would suggest that making the phone/screen bigger would in fact be possible, if the modular platform was designed to accommodate.
Agree with everything, especially weight and battery comments.
Wouldn't it be nice to have an easily hot swappable battery with a tiny internal battery in the phone so you wouldn't even have to turn it off to do so?
Weight matters? I have never heard "I wish my phone was lighter" from anyone, anywhere. In fact I've heard from several who think a heavier phone means it's "better made".
Battery life - Again my Android friends (and a few 5c friends) suffer from poor battery life - How would a phone where you could easily swap for a new/better battery be inferior?
Gruber should remind himself of the first generation of pretty much any tech product. Bulky, ugly, and clumsy could describe a lot of projects that push technology to it's limits.